Search Results

Search found 659 results on 27 pages for 'safety'.

Page 7/27 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Are +=, |=, &= etc atomic?

    - by SF.
    Are the "modify" operators like +=, |=, &= etc atomic? I know ++ is atomic (if you perform x++; in two different threads "simultaneously", you will always end up with x increased by 2, as opposed to x=x+1 with optimization switched off.) What I wonder is whether variable |= constant, and the likes are thread-safe or do I have to protect them with a mutex? (...or is it CPU-dependent? In this case, how is it on ARM?)

    Read the article

  • Is this a valid pattern for raising events in C#?

    - by Will Vousden
    Update: For the benefit of anyone reading this, since .NET 4, the lock is unnecessary due to changes in synchronization of auto-generated events, so I just use this now: public static void Raise<T>(this EventHandler<T> handler, object sender, T e) where T : EventArgs { if (handler != null) { handlerCopy(sender, e); } } And to raise it: SomeEvent.Raise(this, new FooEventArgs()); Having been reading one of Jon Skeet's articles on multithreading, I've tried to encapsulate the approach he advocates to raising an event in an extension method like so (with a similar generic version): public static void Raise(this EventHandler handler, object @lock, object sender, EventArgs e) { EventHandler handlerCopy; lock (@lock) { handlerCopy = handler; } if (handlerCopy != null) { handlerCopy(sender, e); } } This can then be called like so: protected virtual void OnSomeEvent(EventArgs e) { this.someEvent.Raise(this.eventLock, this, e); } Are there any problems with doing this? Also, I'm a little confused about the necessity of the lock in the first place. As I understand it, the delegate is copied in the example in the article to avoid the possibility of it changing (and becoming null) between the null check and the delegate call. However, I was under the impression that access/assignment of this kind is atomic, so why is the lock necessary? Update: With regards to Mark Simpson's comment below, I threw together a test: static class Program { private static Action foo; private static Action bar; private static Action test; static void Main(string[] args) { foo = () => Console.WriteLine("Foo"); bar = () => Console.WriteLine("Bar"); test += foo; test += bar; test.Test(); Console.ReadKey(true); } public static void Test(this Action action) { action(); test -= foo; Console.WriteLine(); action(); } } This outputs: Foo Bar Foo Bar This illustrates that the delegate parameter to the method (action) does not mirror the argument that was passed into it (test), which is kind of expected, I guess. My question is will this affect the validity of the lock in the context of my Raise extension method? Update: Here is the code I'm now using. It's not quite as elegant as I'd have liked, but it seems to work: public static void Raise<T>(this object sender, ref EventHandler<T> handler, object eventLock, T e) where T : EventArgs { EventHandler<T> copy; lock (eventLock) { copy = handler; } if (copy != null) { copy(sender, e); } }

    Read the article

  • Java: is Exception class thread-safe?

    - by Vilius Normantas
    As I understand, Java's Exception class is certainly not immutable (methods like initCause and setStackTrace give some clues about that). So is it at least thread-safe? Suppose one of my classes has a field like this: private final Exception myException; Can I safely expose this field to multiple threads? I'm not willing to discuss concrete cases where and why this situation could occur. My question is more about the principle: can I tell that a class which exposes field of Exception type is thread-safe? Another example: class CustomException extends Exception { ... } Is this class thread-safe?

    Read the article

  • If array is thread safe, what the issue with this function?

    - by Ajay Sharma
    I am totally lost with the things that is happening with my code.It make me to think & get clear with Array's thread Safe concept. Is NSMutableArray OR NSMutableDictionary Thread Safe ? While my code is under execution, the values for the MainArray get's changes although, that has been added to Array. Please try to execute this code, onyour system its very much easy.I am not able to get out of this Trap. It is the function where it is returning Array. What I am Looking to do is : -(Array) (Main Array) --(Dictionary) with Key Value (Multiple Dictionary in Main Array) ----- Above dictionary has 9 Arrays in it. This is the structure I am developing for Array.But even before #define TILE_ROWS 3 #define TILE_COLUMNS 3 #define TILE_COUNT (TILE_ROWS * TILE_COLUMNS) -(NSArray *)FillDataInArray:(int)counter { NSMutableArray *temprecord = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init]; for(int i = 0; i <counter;i++) { if([temprecord count]<=TILE_COUNT) { NSMutableDictionary *d1 = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc]init]; [d1 setValue:[NSString stringWithFormat:@"%d/2011",i+1] forKey:@"serial_data"]; [d1 setValue:@"Friday 13 Sep 12:00 AM" forKey:@"date_data"]; [d1 setValue:@"Description Details " forKey:@"details_data"]; [d1 setValue:@"Subject Line" forKey:@"subject_data"]; [temprecord addObject:d1]; d1= nil; [d1 release]; if([temprecord count]==TILE_COUNT) { NSMutableDictionary *holderKey = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc]initWithObjectsAndKeys:temprecord,[NSString stringWithFormat:@"%d",[casesListArray count]+1],nil]; [self.casesListArray addObject:holderKey]; [holderKey release]; holderKey =nil; [temprecord removeAllObjects]; } } else { [temprecord removeAllObjects]; NSMutableDictionary *d1 = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc]init]; [d1 setValue:[NSString stringWithFormat:@"%d/2011",i+1] forKey:@"serial_data"]; [d1 setValue:@"Friday 13 Sep 12:00 AM" forKey:@"date_data"]; [d1 setValue:@"Description Details " forKey:@"details_data"]; [d1 setValue:@"Subject Line" forKey:@"subject_data"]; [temprecord addObject:d1]; d1= nil; [d1 release]; } } return temprecord; [temprecord release]; } What is the problem with this Code ? Every time there are 9 records in Array, it just replaces the whole Array value instead of just for specific key Value.

    Read the article

  • What image processing Library should I use

    - by Swippen
    I have been reading What is the best image manipulation library? And tried a few libraries and are now looking for inputs on what is the best for our need. I will start by describing our current setting and problems. We have a system that needs to resize and crop a large amount of images from big original images. We handle 50 000+ images every day on 2 powerfull servers. Today we use ImageGlue from WebSupergoo but we don't like it at all, it is slow and hangs the service now and then (Its in another unanswered stack overflow question). We have a threaded windows service that uses Microsoft ThreadPool to resize as much as possible on the 8 core machines. I have tried AForge and it went very well it was loads faster and never crashed or anything. But I had problems with quality on a few images. This due to what algorithms I used ofc so can be tweaked. But want to widen our eyes to see if thats the right way to go. so: It needs to be c# .net and run in a windows service. (Since we wont change the rest of the service only image handling) It needs to handle threaded environment well. We have a great need of it being fast since today its too slow. But we also want good quality and small filesize since the images are later displayed on webpage with loads of visitors and needs good quality. So we have a lot of demands on ability to get god quality at a fast pace, and also secondary keep filesizes lowered even if that can be adjusted with compression a bit. Any comments or suggestions on what library to use?

    Read the article

  • Are indivisible operations still indivisible on multiprocessor and multicore systems?

    - by Steve314
    As per the title, plus what are the limitations and gotchas. For example, on x86 processors, alignment for most data types is optional - an optimisation rather than a requirement. That means that a pointer may be stored at an unaligned address, which in turn means that pointer might be split over a cache page boundary. Obviously this could be done if you work hard enough on any processor (picking out particular bytes etc), but not in a way where you'd still expect the write operation to be indivisible. I seriously doubt that a multicore processor can ensure that other cores can guarantee a consistent all-before or all-after view of a written pointer in this unaligned-write-crossing-a-page-boundary situation. Am I right? And are there any similar gotchas I haven't thought of?

    Read the article

  • VB.NET 2.0 - StackOverflowException when using Thread Safe calls to Windows Forms Controls

    - by LamdaComplex
    I have a Windows Forms app that, unfortunately, must make calls to controls from a second thread. I've been using the thread-safe pattern described on the http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms171728.aspx. Which has worked great in the past. The specific problem I am having now: I have a WebBrowser control and I'm attempting to invoke the WebBrowser.Navigate() method using this Thread-Safe pattern and as a result I am getting StackOverflow exceptions. Here is the Thread-Safe Navigate method I've written. Private Delegate Sub NavigateControlCallback(ByRef wb As WebBrowser, ByVal url As String) Private Sub AsyncNavigate(ByRef wb As WebBrowser, ByVal URL As String) Try If wb.InvokeRequired Then Dim callback As New NavigateControlCallback(AddressOf AsyncNavigate) callback(wb, url) Else wb.Navigate(url) End If Catch ex As Exception End Try End Sub Is there a Thread-Safe way to interact with WinForms components without the side effect of these StackOverflowExceptions?

    Read the article

  • How do I refactor this IEnumerable<T> to be thread-safe?

    - by DayOne
    I am looking at Skeet's AtomicEnumerable but I'm not sure how to integrate it into my current IEnumerable exmaple below (http://msmvps.com/blogs/jon_skeet/archive/2009/10/23/iterating-atomically.aspx) Basically I want to foreach my blahs type in a thread-safe way. thanks public sealed class Blahs : IEnumerable<string> { private readonly IList<string> _data = new List<string>() { "blah1", "blah2", "blah3" }; public IEnumerator<string> GetEnumerator() { return _data.GetEnumerator(); } IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() { return GetEnumerator(); } }

    Read the article

  • Safest LAMP encrypt method

    - by Adam Kiss
    Hello, what is PHP's safest encrypt/decrypt method, in use with MySQL - to store let's say passwords? Of course, not for portal purposes. I want to do little password (domain/mysql/ftp...) storage for whole team online, but I don't want really to endanger our clients' bussinesses. Hash can't be used for obvious reasons (Doesn't really make sense to run rainbow tables every time :D). Any idea?

    Read the article

  • Is it okay to pass injected EntityManagers to EJB bean's helper classes and use it?

    - by Zwei steinen
    We have some JavaEE5 stateless EJB bean that passes the injected EntityManager to its helpers. Is this safe? It has worked well until now, but I found out some Oracle document that states its implementation of EntityManager is thread-safe. Now I wonder whether the reason we did not have issues until now, was only because the implementation we were using happened to be thread-safe (we use Oracle). @Stateless class SomeBean { @PersistenceContext private EntityManager em; private SomeHelper helper; @PostConstruct public void init(){ helper = new SomeHelper(em); } @Override public void business(){ helper.doSomethingWithEm(); } } Actually it makes sense.. If EntityManager is thread-unsafe, a container would have to do inercept business() this.em = newEntityManager(); business(); which will not propagate to its helper classes. If so, what is the best practice in this kind of a situation? Passing EntityManagerFactory instead of EntityManager?

    Read the article

  • C# struct with object as data member

    - by source-energy
    As we know, in C# structs are passed by value, not by reference. So if I have a struct with the following data members: private struct MessageBox { // data members private DateTime dm_DateTimeStamp; // a struct type private TimeSpan dm_TimeSpanInterval; // also a struct private ulong dm_MessageID; // System.Int64 type, struct private String dm_strMessage; // an object (hence a reference is stored here) // more methods, properties, etc ... } So when a MessageBox is passed as a parameter, a COPY is made on the stack, right? What does that mean in terms of how the data members are copied? The first two are struct types, so copies should be made of DateTime and TimeSpan. The third type is a primitive, so it's also copied. But what about the dm_strMessage, which is a reference to an object? When it's copied, another reference to the same String is created, right? The object itself resides in the heap, and is NOT copied (there is only one instance of it on the heap.) So now we have to references to the same object of type String. If the two references are accessed from different threads, it's conceivable that the String object could be corrupted by being modified from two different directions simultaneously. The MSDN documentation says that System.String is thread safe. Does that mean that the String class has a built-in mechanism to prevent an object being corrupted in exactly the type of situation described here? I'm trying to figure out if my MessageBox struct has any potential flaws / pitfalls being a structure vs. a class. Thanks for any input. Source.Energy.

    Read the article

  • Efficient implementation of threads in the given scenario

    - by shadeMe
    I've got a winforms application that is set up in the following manner: 2 buttons, a textbox, a collection K, function X and another function, Y. Function X parses a large database and enumerates some of its data in the global collection. Button 1 calls function X. Function Y walks through the above collection and prints out the data in the textbox. Button 2 calls function Y. I'd like to call function X through a worker thread in such a way that: The form remains responsive to user input. This comes intrinsically from the use of a separate thread. There is never more than a single instance of function X running at any point in time. K can be accessed by both functions at all times. What would be the most efficient implementation of the above environment ?

    Read the article

  • How to find out where a thread lock happend?

    - by SchlaWiener
    One of our company's Windows Forms application had a strange problem for several month. The app worked very reliable for most of our customers but on some PC's (mostly with a wireless lan connection) the app sometimes just didn't respond anymore. (You click on the UI and windows ask you to wait or kill the app). I wasn't able to track down the problem for a long time but now I figured out what happend. The app had this line of code // don't blame me for this. Wasn't my code :D Control.CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false and used some background threads to modify the controls. No I found a way to reproduce the application stopping responding bug on my dev machine and tracked it down to a line where I actually used Invoke() to run a task in the main thread. Me.Invoke(MyDelegate, arg1, arg2) Obviously there was a thread lock somewhere. After removing the Control.CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false statement and refactoring the whole programm to use Invoke() if modifying a control from a background thread, the problem is (hopefully) gone. However, I am wondering if there is a way to find such bugs without debugging every line of code (Even if I break into debugger after the app stops responding I can't tell what happend last, because the IDE didn't jump to the Invoke() statement) In other words: If my apps hangs how can I figure out which line of code has been executed last? Maybe even on the customers PC. I know VS2010 offers some backwards debugging feature, maybe that would be a solution, but currently I am using VS2008.

    Read the article

  • Why there is no scoped locks for multiple mutexes in C++0x or Boost.Thread?

    - by Vicente Botet Escriba
    C++0x thread library or Boost.thread define non-member variadic template function that lock all lock avoiding dead lock. template <class L1, class L2, class... L3> void lock(L1&, L2&, L3&...); While this function avoid help to deadlock, the standard do not includes the associated scoped lock to write exception safe code. { std::lock(l1,l2); // do some thing // unlock li l2 exception safe } That means that we need to use other mechanism as try-catch block to make exception safe code or define our own scoped lock on multiple mutexes ourselves or even do that { std::lock(l1,l2); std::unique_lock lk1(l1, std::adopted); std::unique_lock lk2(l2, std::adopted); // do some thing // unlock li l2 on destruction of lk1 lk2 } Why the standard doesn't includes a scoped lock on multiple mutexes of the same type, as for example { std::array_unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(l1,l2); // do some thing // unlock l1 l2 on destruction of lk } or tuples of mutexes { std::tuple_unique_lock<std::mutex, std::recursive_mutex> lk(l1,l2); // do some thing // unlock l1 l2 on destruction of lk } Is there something wrong on the design?

    Read the article

  • ReaderWriterLockSlim question.

    - by Kamarey
    There are lots written about the ReaderWriterLockSlim class which allows multiple read and a single write. All of these (at least that I had found) tell how to use it without much explanation why and how it works. The standard code sample is: lock.EnterUpgradeableReadLock(); try { if (test if write is required) { lock.EnterWriteLock(); try { change the resourse here. } finally { lock.ExitWriteLock(); } } } finally { lock.ExitUpgradeableReadLock(); } The question is: if upgradeable lock permits only a single thread to enter its section, why I should call EnterWriteLock method within? What will happen if I don't? Or what will happen if instead of EnterUpgradeableReadLock I will call EnterWriteLock and will write to a resource without using upgradeable lock at all?

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with locking non-static fields? What is the correct way to lock a particular instance?

    - by smartcaveman
    Why is it considered bad practice to lock non-static fields? And, if I am not locking non-static fields, then how do I lock an instance method without locking the method on all other instances of the same or derived class? I wrote an example to make my question more clear. public abstract class BaseClass { private readonly object NonStaticLockObject = new object(); private static readonly object StaticLockObject = new object(); protected void DoThreadSafeAction<T>(Action<T> action) where T: BaseClass { var derived = this as T; if(derived == null) { throw new Exception(); } lock(NonStaticLockObject) { action(derived); } } } public class DerivedClass :BaseClass { private readonly Queue<object> _queue; public void Enqueue(object obj) { DoThreadSafeAction<DerivedClass>(x=>x._queue.Enqueue(obj)); } } If I make the lock on the StaticLockObject, then the DoThreadSafeAction method will be locked for all instances of all classes that derive from BaseClass and that is not what I want. I want to make sure that no other threads can call a method on a particular instance of an object while it is locked.

    Read the article

  • Is boost shared_ptr <XXX> thread safe?

    - by sxingfeng
    I have a question about boost :: shared_ptr. There are lots of thread. class CResource { xxxxxx } class CResourceBase { public: void SetResource(shared_ptr<CResource> res) { m_Res = res; } shared_ptr<CResource> GetResource() { return m_Res; } private: shared_ptr<CResource> m_Res; } CResourceBase base; //---------------------------------------------- Thread A: while (true) { ...... shared_ptr<CResource> nowResource = base.GetResource(); nowResource.doSomeThing(); ... } Thread B: shared_ptr<CResource> nowResource; base.SetResource(nowResource); ... //----------------------------------------------------------- If thread A do not care the nowResource is the newest . Will this part of code have problem? I mean when ThreadB do not SetResource completely, Thread A get a wrong smart point by GetResource? Another question : what does thread-safe mean? If I do not care about whether the resource is newest, will the shared_ptr nowResource crash the program when the nowResource is released or will the problem destroy the shared_point?

    Read the article

  • DOM Storage and locks

    - by user535759
    Since DOM storage and its equivalencies persist in between tabs and windows, I've thought about using it for message passing. The problem is that fetch and store are different operations, and therefore not atomic. I have models that rely on UUID generation, conflict resolutions, and beaconing to do the small subset of what I need to do, but my real question is this: Since the local storage is a shared memory resource, what are the locking mechanisms available for mutual access?

    Read the article

  • Read -> change -> save. Thread safe.

    - by Pavel Alexeev
    This code should automatically connect players when they enter a game. But the problem is when two users try to connect at the same time - in this case 2nd user can easily overwrite changes made by 1st user ('room_1' variable). How could I make it thread safe? def join(userId): users = memcache.get('room_1') users.append(userId) memcache.set('room_1', users) return users I'm using Google App Engine (python) and going to implement simple game-server for exchanging peers given by Adobe Stratus.

    Read the article

  • Best practices about creating a generic object dictionary in C#? Is this bad?

    - by JimDaniel
    For clarity I am using C# 3.5/Asp.Net MVC 2 Here is what I have done: I wanted the ability to add/remove functionality to an object at run-time. So I simply added a generic object dictionary to my class like this: public Dictionary<int, object> Components { get; set; } Then I can add/remove any kind of .Net object into this dictionary at run-time. To insert an object I do something like this: var tag = new Tag(); myObject.Components.Add((int)Types.Components.Tag, tag); Then to retrieve I just do this: if(myObject.Components.ContainsKey((int)Types.Components.Tag)) { var tag = myObject.Components[(int)Types.Components.Tag] as Tag; if(tag != null) { //do stuff } } Somehow I feel sneaky doing this. It works okay, but I am wondering what you guys think about it as a best practice. Thanks for your input, Daniel

    Read the article

  • MMGR Questions, code use and thread-saftey

    - by chadb
    1) Is MMGR thread safe? 2) I was hoping someone could help me understand some code. I am looking at something where a macro is used, but I don't understand the macro. I know it contains a function call and an if check, however, the function is a void function. How does wrapping "(m_setOwner (FILE,_LINE_,FUNCTION),false)" ever change return types? #define someMacro (m_setOwner(__FILE__,__LINE__,__FUNCTION__),false) ? NULL : new ... void m_setOwner(const char *file, const unsigned int line, const char *func); 3) What is the point of the reservoir? 4) On line 770 ("void *operator new(size_t reportedSize)" there is the line "// ANSI says: allocation requests of 0 bytes will still return a valid value" Who/what is ANSI in this context? Do they mean the standards? 5) This is more of C++ standards, but where does "reportedSize" come from for "void *operator new(size_t reportedSize)"? 6) Is this the code that is actually doing the allocation needed? "au-actualAddress = malloc(au-actualSize);"

    Read the article

  • Does Interlocked guarantee visibility to other threads in C# or do I still have to use volatile?

    - by Lirik
    I've been reading the answer to a similar question, but I'm still a little confused... Abel had a great answer, but this is the part that I'm unsure about: ...declaring a variable volatile makes it volatile for every single access. It is impossible to force this behavior any other way, hence volatile cannot be replaced with Interlocked. This is needed in scenarios where other libraries, interfaces or hardware can access your variable and update it anytime, or need the most recent version. Does Interlocked guarantee visibility of the atomic operation to all threads, or do I still have to use the volatile keyword on the value in order to guarantee visibility of the change? Here is my example: public class CountDownLatch { private volatile int m_remain; // <--- do I need the volatile keyword there since I'm using Interlocked? private EventWaitHandle m_event; public CountDownLatch (int count) { Reset(count); } public void Reset(int count) { if (count < 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); m_remain = count; m_event = new ManualResetEvent(false); if (m_remain == 0) { m_event.Set(); } } public void Signal() { // The last thread to signal also sets the event. if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref m_remain) == 0) m_event.Set(); } public void Wait() { m_event.WaitOne(); } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >